Na'vi/Discourse

Beyond the level of syntax is. This is the influence that the practical requirements of speech have on grammar. Such influences include the relative frequency of words and phrases; context, mutual knowledge, and the flow of information in a conversation; and the intentions and feelings of the speakers. For example, the choice between long and short case forms and long and short plural forms may depend on such factors; other areas of grammar influenced by discourse factors include the choice between preposition and suffix; "free" word order; the choice between referring to something with a noun or with a pronoun; the omission of pronouns, tense, aspect, and mood when these are assumed to be understood; the choice between using the topic or a grammatically determined case for a noun phrase; the use of second-position (affect) infixes in a verb; and the transitivity of the verb.

Discourse particles
Various s in Naʼvi are used for addressing people, expressing emotion, and organizing a conversation. For example, tse is used to introduce an utterance, a mild announcement that one has something to say, like "now" or "well" in English. Tut is a particle of continuation; if someone asks for your name, or how you are, after answering you can add ngaru tut? "and you?" The vocative particle ma was covered in the chapter on, and the question-tag particle srake in the chapter on. Also considered particles are s such as tewti! "wow!", though other parts of speech may be used in this fashion, such as tam "to suffice" or "okay".

Affect
The, covered in the are determined primarily be discourse phenomena: The emotional connection the speaker has with the event, how likely the statement is to be accurate, and how much respect the social situation calls for.

There are also emotive s that appear at the end of a clause and reflect the emotional connection the speaker feels about the topic of discussion or with the audience:


 * Disparaging pak, as in Tsamsiyu pak? "Hah! A warrior! (you call that a warrior?)"


 * A particle for surprise, exclamation, and encouragement, nang "oh my!", which typically occurs with nìtxan "so much", as in sevin nìtxan nang! "my aren't you pretty!" or "look how pretty you are!"


 * A particle ko which elicits agreement, like the of Canadian English (in other English dialects, ko can be translated "let's", "okay?", "why don't you", "wouldn't you agree?", etc.), as in makto ko! "Let's ride!" and,


 * Tsun tutet tspivang ko


 * tsun||tute-t||tsp‹iv›ang||ko
 * be.able||person-||kill‹›||
 * }
 * "They can kill a person, you know."
 * "They can kill a person, you know."

Omission of pronouns
Pronouns allow one to refer to something multiple times without repeating its name. However, Naʼvi goes a step further: Pronouns tend to be used when switching from one referent to another, but otherwise dropped. That is, once the identity of a referent is established, pronouns aren't necessary, even for the subject of a clause. This is familiar from English texting, but is not as common in conversation. In Naʼvi, it is good conversational style as well. The identity of subjects may also be recovered from situational expectations. If a simple statement of a feeling is made, such as ʼefu ngeyn "feel(s) tired", it can be assumed that the subject is the speaker, oe, as one can only be sure of one's own feelings; and if a question, ʼefu ngeyn srak?, it can be assumed that the speaker is inquiring about (ay)nga "you", as you're the only one whose feelings you would know directly. For third persons, one would normally expect the evidential in ‹ats›, as one can have no direct knowledge of the feelings of another person: ʼefatsu ngeyn "(s/he) seems tired"; ʼefatsu ngeyn srak? "do (they) seem tired (to you)?".

Register
Two language are attested in Naʼvi. The formal ceremonial register has already been introduced; it's characterized by formal pronouns and an infix to the verb. There is also a military register. This is characterized by clipped speech&mdash;clipped even by Naʼvi standards&mdash;and abbreviated pronouns. For example,
 * Tìkan tawnatep!
 * "Target lost!"

T‹awn›atep cannot function as an English passive; the closest in the normal register would be tìkan atawnatep "a lost target".

In addition, the ä is dropped from genitive pronouns: oey (pronounced [wey]) "my", ngey "your", pey "her/his", etc.

Topic–comment
As was discussed in the section on, Naʼvi frequently uses a structure, where a phrase is placed at the beginning of the sentence as the topic (background) for the comment which follows:


 * Sìpawmìri oe ngaru seiyi irayo


 * sì-pawm-ìri||oe||nga-ru||s‹ei›i||irayo
 * pl+-ask-||I||you-||do‹›||thank
 * }
 * "Thank you for the questions" (lit. "As for the questions, I thank you")
 * }
 * "Thank you for the questions" (lit. "As for the questions, I thank you")

However, a noun phrase is sometimes moved to the front of a clause without it taking the topic case:


 * Fìswiräti, ngal pelun molunge fìtseng?
 * "This creature, why do you bring him here?"


 * fì-swirä-ti||nga-ìl||pe-lun||m‹ol›unge||fì-tsenge
 * this-creature-||you-||what-reason||bring‹›||this-place
 * }
 * }

Since the topical case can only be used with nouns, in order to topicalize a clause, it must be relativized to a dummy noun:


 * Furia nì'Ìnglìsì pamrel sivi, oeru txoa livu.
 * "Excuse me for writing in English."

(Lit. "as for writing in English, may I be forgiven".)
 * fì-ʼu-ri-a||nì-ʼÌnglìsì||pam-rel||s‹iv›i||oe-ru||txoa||l‹iv›u
 * this-thing--||-English||sound-image||make‹›||I-||pardon||be‹›
 * }
 * }

Word order
Naʼvi (subject–object–verb order) is syntactically free—that is, it is determined by  factors rather than by. The word order within a (demonstrative-numeral-adjective-noun etc.) is similarly free. One of the few cases where a set word order is common is that lu tends to come at the beginning of a clause when it is used without a subject to mean "there is", a construction used for "to have": Lu oeru ikran "I have a banshee".
 * expand 'focus'

The basic (least marked) order is perhaps subject before object. Moving an argument to the front of a clause can be used to on it. For example,


 * Naʼvil ayyerikit yom "The People eat hexapedes"
 * Ayyerikit Naʼvil yom "Hexapedes (not direhorses) are eaten by the People"

That is, "hexapedes" are the point of the statement. (Naʼvi does not have a, which may perform a somewhat similar function in English.) This is the opposite of the topic, which would set the hexapedes up as the background for a following point:


 * Ayyerikìri, Naʼvil yom "As for hexapedes, the People eat them."

Likewise, moving an argument from where it would be expected at the front of a clause to the end may give it more "punch":


 * Lu oeru kxetse "I have a tail" (neutral statement)


 * Ngeyä kxetse lu oeru "Your tail is mine!" (emphasis on mine)

As noted under in the chapter on, the default word order of possession is lu "be" followed by the possessor in the dative, as in lu oeru "I have". Along with context, this helps distinguish who is who in a multiple dative construction:


 * Lu oeru aylìʼu frapor.
 * "I have something (= words) to say, to everyone."

where frapor "everyone" can be understood to be the recipient because it is not adjacent to the verb.
 * lu||oe-ru||ay-lìʼu||fra-po-r
 * be||I-||-word||every-one-
 * }
 * be||I-||-word||every-one-
 * }

Another factor in Naʼvi word order is aesthetic. For example, nga yáwne lu oér "I love you" (lit. "you are beloved to me") has the order it does because it is considered the most euphonious.

In proverbs and songs, meter is also a consideration. For example, in the korén aʼáwve tìruséyä ʼawsiténg ("the first rule of living together", the Golden Rule):


 * Hém ngeyä zénke fkóru livú,
 * tsáhem a ngáru pŕrteʼ ke lú

Clause order
This kind of subordinating strategy is common among human fixed-order s such as Japanese, Korean, and Turkish. Indeed, though these examples followed the English word order of subordinate clause following the noun it modifies, the human verb-final order of subordinate clause preceding the noun is also possible in Naʼvi:


 * Tsun oe ngahu nì-Naʼvi pivängkxo a fìʼu oeru prrteʼ lu.
 * "It's a pleasure to be able to chat with you in Naʼvi."


 * tsun||oe||nga-hu||nì-Naʼvi||p‹iv›ängkxo||a||fì-ʼu||oe-ru||prrteʼ||lu
 * be.able || I. || you-with || -Naʼvi || chat‹› || || this-thing || I- || pleasure? || be
 * }
 * (Lit. "this being-able-to-chat-with-you-in-Naʼvi thing is a pleasure to me")
 * }
 * (Lit. "this being-able-to-chat-with-you-in-Naʼvi thing is a pleasure to me")

For example, "I didn't see where she was going", po tsane karmä a tsengit ke tsìmeʼa oel above, could also be worded oel tsìmeʼa ke tsengit a po karmä tsane, where po karmä tsane "she was going there" occurs on either side of the object tsengit "place". This contrast can be further seen in the following, where a relative clause is used to nominalize a clause in order for it to form a topic:


 * Ngal oeyä ʼupxaret aysuteru fpoleʼ a fìʼuri, ngaru irayo seiyi oe nìtxan!
 * "Thank you very much for sending my message to people!"

or conversely,
 * nga-l||oe-eyä||ʼupxare-t||ay+tute-ru||fp‹ol›eʼ||a||fì-ʼu-ri||nga-ru||irayo||s‹ei›i||oe||nì-txan
 * you-||I-||message-||+person-||send‹›||||this-thing-||you-||thank||do‹›||I.||-much
 * }
 * }
 * Furia ngal oeyä ʼupxaret aysuteru fpoleʼ, ngaru irayo seiyi oe nìtxan!


 * fì-ʼu-ri-a||nga-l||oe-eyä||ʼupxare-t||ay+sute-ru||fp‹ol›eʼ||nga-ru||irayo||s‹ei›i||oe||nì-txan
 * this-thing--||you-||I-||message-||+person-||send‹›||you-||thank||do‹›||I.||-much
 * }
 * }

"Because" for the English clause order (verb-X because verb-Y) is either taweyk(a) (from oeyk "cause") or talun(a) (from lun "reason"). With the opposite clause order, the forms switch to aweykta and alunta.

Transitivity
Verbs in which transitive and intransitive forms imply different agents are made transitive with the infix ‹eyk›. For example, latem means "change", as an object changes by itself, as say the seasons change; if an external agent causes the change, however, the form is l‹eyk›atem. Similarly sngäʼi is "begin" in the sense that something happens on its own, as the rain begins; with an external agent, as in "I began work", the form is sng‹eyk›äʼi. However, with many verbs, transitivity does not imply a change in the acting agent. For example, pey may be either "wait" (intransitive) or "await" (transitive):


 * Nìaynga oe perey nìteng.
 * "Like you, I too am waiting."


 * nì-ay-nga||oe||p‹er›ey||nì-teng
 * --you||I||wait‹›||-same
 * }
 * }


 * Oe tsun pivey trrit a nga tayìng ayoer(u) nì'ul.
 * "I can await the day when you will give us more."


 * oe||tsun||p‹iv›ey||trr-it||a||nga||t‹ay›ìng||ay-oe-ru||nì-ʼul
 * I||can||wait‹›||day-||||you||give‹›||-I-||-more
 * }
 * }

Here the person waiting is the same, regardless of the transitivity of the verb, so the causative infix is not used.

General action, without any specific object, as in English "I ate too much", is intransitive, whereas an implied but unstated object, as in "he ate some (of it)", is transitive. Thus,


 * Oe taron
 * "I hunt"

Here the speaker is merely saying that hunting is an activity that they engage in; this equivalent to such intransitive clauses as "I walk". An overt object, on the other hand, requires that the agent be in the ergative case:
 * oe||taron
 * I. ||hunt
 * }
 * }


 * Oel tolaron paʼlit
 * "I hunted a direhorse"

If, however, the agent is in the ergative case, but there is no expressed object, then an omitted object is understood. So if asked about yerik, the speaker might say,
 * oe-l||t‹ol›aron||paʼli-t
 * I- ||hunt‹›||direhorse-
 * }
 * }


 * Taron oel kop.
 * "I hunt them too"


 * taron||oe-l||kop
 * hunt|| I- || as.well
 * }
 * }

In the case a relative clause removed either the subject or object of a dependent clause, the case of the other, and the transitivity of the dependent verb, are unaffected:


 * Ikran a tolaron oel tsawl lu nìtxan.
 * "The banshee I hunted was very big."

Here ikran is in the intransitive case because it is the subject of lu "to be"; however, oel remains in the ergative, since the object is understood from the context: Ikran a tolaron pot oel tsawl lu nìtxan "the banshee which I hunted it was very big".
 * ikran||a||t‹ol›aron||oe-l||tsawl||lu||nì-txan
 * banshee.||||hunt‹›|| I- || big || be || -great
 * }
 * }

The ergative case can also be dropped if the object is retain in a non-accusative case, as in a topic:


 * Tìfyawìntxuri oeyä perey aynga nìwotx.
 * "You are all waiting for my guidance."


 * tì-fya-wìntxu-ri||oe-yä||p‹er›ey||ay-nga||nì-wotx
 * -way-show-||I-||wait‹›||-you||-all
 * }
 * }

With an intransitive verb, the simply makes the verb transitive. For example, from po holahaw "he. slept" we get oel h‹eyk›olahaw poti "I. put him. to bed (made him sleep)". However, if the verb is already transitive, its subject (now the 'causee') becomes dative rather than accusative. That is, there may be up to three arguments, in the ergative, dative, and accusative cases. So, from Neytiril yerikit tolaron "Neytiri. hunted a hexapede., we get:


 * Eytukanìl Neytiriru yerikit teykolaron.
 * "Eytukan had Neytiri hunt a hexapede."


 * eytukan-ìl||neytiri-ru||yerik-it||t‹eyk›‹ol›aron
 * (name)-||(name)-||hexapede-||hunt‹›‹›
 * }
 * }

Not all arguments are required; also, the causee can be included but made more peripheral by putting it in an adpositional phrase:




 * Eytukanìl yerikit teykolaron.||  Also:     ||Eytukanìl fa Neytiri yerikit teykolaron.
 * "Eytukan had a hexapede hunted."|| ||"Eytukan had a hexapede hunted by Neytiri."
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

In English, the opposite of a causative is a. Naʼvi does not have passives; something like "hexapedes are eaten" would be worded fkol yom ayyerikit "one eats hexapedes", with the pronoun fko "one". The difference between "hexapedes are eaten by the People" and "the People eat hexapedes" is essentially one of word order; since Naʼvi word order is free, it can be changed without having to change the verb or the subject, as noted above.